I warned you, and now a ball boy has copped it for no good reason

League Columnist

The game was the loser: Eels supporters vent their frustration at the referees on Friday night. Photo: Getty Images

In my column earlier this season, I wrote: ‘‘Two rules that were introduced to the NRL this season need to be altered as soon as possible. I have written on this same subject some months ago and nothing I have seen in recent times has changed my mind. In fact, I am more certain than ever that these rules need to be changed.

‘‘The first relates to the rule awarding a team a tap kick instead of a scrum feed if successful in kicking a 40-20. This whole process needs to be refined. Kicking the 40-20 and getting the tap kick is the advantage.

‘‘Allowing teams the quick tap before referees and defenders are in position is too much of a reward, particularly when the quickness of the tap kick is also dependent upon the positioning and servicing from ball boys.

‘‘There can be no consistency here. Not to mention those occasions where play is delayed because referees need to refer the kick for review. The restart has to be standardised and equal on all occasions.’’

Advertisement

I won’t bore you with the details of the other rule I spoke of at that time. This extract will suffice for the purposes of introducing my column today. Quite simply, I don’t think I have ever been more embarrassed for our code than I was on Friday night as a result of the debacle involving the Parramatta Eels 40-20 quick tap. In fact, I was more than embarrassed. The incident left me angry, frustrated and disappointed.

This ridiculous rule and the inadequate thought behind its adoption and execution represent a perfect snapshot of the farce that has become the management of the rules in our NRL competition.

Those responsible for the processes and decisions that exposed our game to such ridicule should be held to account. It was disgraceful.

It had been coming for some time. We warned everybody such an incident would occur at a vital time in a crucial game before the season ended. What do they do about it? They do nothing and just hope the matter goes away or never rears its ugly head.

If they claim they did do something about it, obviously they have no understanding of the cause and effect as a result of changing something that may seem to be minor.

It’s not just this rule either. A number of rules, interpretations and processes have been introduced over time that simply leave you scratching your head at where this is going to end.

Every day I field calls from people within the game complaining about something in our code. I feel like the complaint department. Football used to be fun.

Many speak of a genuine fear our great game will one day be brought to its knees by incompetence, political correctness, minority opinion, media agendas and a lack of game-experienced leadership.

Anyway, back to the debacle on Friday night. Let’s look at the new 40-20 tap kick rule. Why was it introduced? The game didn’t need it.

That is so typical of our game. Changing and dealing with the minor, while ignoring the major issues. We could come up with a list a mile long of the important issues our game should be addressing. Instead we keep shooting ourselves in the foot over trivial issues. Of all the things our game needed to address, the changing of the restart of play from a 40-20 kick would have rated about one-billionth on the list.

No one was complaining about a scrum restart for a 40-20. So why did we change it? I bet some coach sitting on some inane rules committee suggested it. Why? Probably because he felt that if he was on the committee he was compelled to contribute something.

Or perhaps he felt his own team had a better chance of defending a 40-20 from a tap kick with all his players in the defensive line, rather than having all his forwards packed into a scrum.

I have written for more than 20 years that present-day coaches should never, ever, be given access to the rule book. I stand by this statement today.

Anyway, for some unknown reason, our game decides to accept the change to this rule. At the same time the game also announces it will change the interpretation of allowing quick-tap kicks from penalties. As a result, the 40-20 tap kick somehow also gets caught up in the quick-tap mentality, even though I doubt the quick tap was ever a real part of the original discussions.

Not to mention there could never be consistency with a quick-tap process for 40-20 restarts.

For starters, on many occasions the referee needs to stop play and refer the kick to the video referee before the 40-20 is awarded.

Therefore, if all 40-20s can’t be quick taps, then none should be quick taps. A quick-tap restart should never have been a consideration. Yet we let it happen. How? Who allows this stuff?

We could all see the problem looming. Those responsible hadn’t done their homework. They were confusing the issues. They ignored the warnings. BOOM! The result is total embarrassment for our code on national TV, total disenchantment for fans of the two teams involved, and the bitter disappointment for the players on both teams who played their hearts out all game, only to have the entire contest spoiled by this moment. The saddest part of all this was the unwanted attention, stress and anguish for the poor youngster who happened to be the ball-boy. Right at this point, may I say ‘‘Chin up son.’’ This was not your fault. You did nothing wrong. Ignore all the complaints. This is just grown-ups blowing off a bit of steam. It’s only a game.

No one was hurt here. For all those people who know the young ball boy, please pass on our best wishes and total support. If there is ever anything I can do to make him feel better, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

All this could’ve been avoided with stronger management and proper process. First, we didn’t need the change to the 40-20 restart rule. Second, if someone decided we just had to change the rule, then for the sake of consistency of implementation, it should never have been granted a quick tap before the defensive line was set. That was the ridiculous part of all this.

Third, if for some reason they decided it should be a quick tap, there had to be a better process in place for the restart rather than having this supposedly professional sporting code relying on a young ball boy to perform a specific duty in the heat of the contest.

My major criticism here is that once they decided on the rule and its interpretation, there was more than enough evidence earlier in the season to know it was headed for a disaster.

We did our best to warn them. But these warnings were ignored for reasons best known to them.

Anyway, the 40-20 fiasco will come and go. Like all the chaotic moments in our game, it will eventually vanish into the ether or be replaced with another clanger in the very near future.

However, I fear the mentality that created this farce and allowed it to occur will linger with us forever. The culture that prevailed in rugby league during the period when a media company owned the game, and a newspaper ran the game, was a dark period in our history. We need to rid our game of this culture forever.

Our game needs leaders who know the game, understand the game and are prepared to defend the integrity, character and history of our game against all those who are low on knowledge and high on personal agendas. Friday night was a bad night.

30 comments

I work with the Northern Pride in the QRL as the team photographer, so I'm right on the sideline at the games. We have young ballboys/girls, and they do an absolutely fantastic job, as I would imagine the poor kid did during this game. However, many times I have heard opposition players yelling at these kids (CHILDREN!) "Gimme the ball, gimme the ball!". Now, if you're 10-12 years old, and this ugly big gorilla is yelling at you, what are you going to do? You're going to react, that's what.

Fortunately, 99 times out of 100 our kids are smart enough to remember to put the ball down on the line, but hey, the way some of the players treat these kids, it's almost child abuse. It needs to be stopped - the players know the rules better than the kids do (or they are supposed to, anyway...) and should refuse to touch a ball that isn't placed on the sideline.

As for the rest of what you are saying, it's like anything else: if it has to go upstairs for video review, in NO cases should a quick tap be permitted. I don't pretend to understand the rules of the game these days, back when I played about 50+ years ago, the rule book was about 1.5 pages of large print.

Commenter

GordonG

Location

Cairns

Date and time

August 16, 2014, 10:17PM

It doesn't matter it the bloke yelling at the kid is a gorilla, kids are taught (or should be) to do as they are told. These good kids, giving up their time to be a part of the game, are doing the right thing and should be congratulated. I really hope that this poor kid isn't feeling bad about this action as he did as he was told by an adult.The problem here lies with a: the Parra player who called for the ball. And B: the NRL for devising such a stupid rule.Why does a defending team, who has shut an opposition set of 6 to within 40m of the try line get punished because of a lucky bounce or a freak kick? Its pandering to the easily amused and not to the genuine sport fan.

Give the kid a pat on the back, Its not his fault.

Commenter

Jamesy

Location

Perth

Date and time

August 17, 2014, 12:04AM

I really would love to hear the audio of the "parra player calling for the hall". You can see he knew the ball needed to go to the sideline. Many a replay has shown the ball was thrown to him, he then went and put his foot on the sideline, stopped, and through the ball in. I'm not a parra supporter, but it should have been play on.

Commenter

JC

Location

Brisbane

Date and time

August 19, 2014, 2:36PM

I've never been more appalled to hear a commentator carry on like a jerk about a kid's action ... then belatedly apologise minutes later. I am shocked that a commentator hasn't criticised adult football players for attempting to induce a child to break the rules; then break the rules and be unhappy with the refs decision. As far as I could see the touchy appeared to be protesting what was happening. The ref had his hand in the air so the eels were attempting to bluff their way to a result they wanted rather than what the rules required. Far too often we hear professional well paid players having to be told the rules of the game - tap from a mark, not tapping, foot on the ball etc - penalise them. The bigger blight on the game is forward passes, over use of kicking and consequently rewarding inept attacks like bombs and rewarding gang tackles and wrestling techniques particularly to the detriment of one-on-one tackles. Stop making a storm in a tea cup! you've done enough damage... bully some one your own size!

Commenter

denni_swill

Location

LangPark Outer

Date and time

August 17, 2014, 12:26AM

Right on the money again Phil. How about this alternative view of the Arthur/Seward/Eels universe; Toutai, the Eels winger who demanded the ball from the ballboy in the first place should be made the scapegoat in all this. He's the adult in the equation, playing first grade and he should have known the rule because a) he's a winger and they will nearly always be in play in a 40/20 situation and b) he should have a calm head in any playing situation. Toutai fails on both counts. Blame the ballboy? I say the kid is a champion because ultimately the action of passing the ball to Toutai will result in modification of an assinine rule. This is a great chance for David Smith, who I do respect, to jump in the car and go and see the young fellow in question to let him know the error was not his. That will send a very powerful message to every young kid who loves the game.

Commenter

Steve

Location

Sydney

Date and time

August 17, 2014, 5:50AM

Yep, bad rules or not, coaching staff and players should ensure they know them. Sandow is a 40/20 sharpshooter, one of his talents and worth, the Eels of all clubs should have been thinking about that. Replay also showed his attempted foot tap with the ball didn't connect. A farce all round. Arthur had a far better gripe with inconsistent refereeing first 20 minutes, which played the Dogs back into form, but as they say,' look at the scoreboard'.

Commenter

BJ

Date and time

August 17, 2014, 8:49AM

The winger calls for the ball. The ball boy puts in on the sideline. The winger picks it up passes to Sandow and Sandow scores. Heat of moment ball boy makes error (same as players and referees made plenty on Friday night).It doesn't necessarily change the gist of Phil's complaint.It is the whole when is a quick tap a quick tap and consistency in application of a rule. Everyone was happy with a 40/20 scrum. Attacking side got another set of 6 inside opposition 20.Change for changes sake is the issue.

Commenter

Bernie

Date and time

August 17, 2014, 9:03AM

Good article Phil. It is a dumb rule. The NRL appears to be in a mess at the moment. Too many business people and big ego's running the game and it is showing.

Commenter

Neweyboy

Location

Newcastle

Date and time

August 17, 2014, 7:49AM

Gus the sooner you are in charge of the NRL the better. Seriously the only person who makes sense amongst all these idiots.

Commenter

That'll do me

Location

Sydney

Date and time

August 17, 2014, 8:07AM

Agree with every point Phil. I've been fascinated for years as to how some of these rule changes have come about. For example, what was the rationale for changing the rules around playing the ball forward and the marker being able to strike for the ball? Is the game better for the interchange? Were scrums really that big a blight on the game that we had to have the current farce where hookers don't even pack in as hookers and fullbacks pack in as locks?